Elasticsearch/OpenSearch MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns information, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as performance impact, rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'health' includes (e.g., node status, indices health). The description is minimal and lacks critical context for safe use.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could be more informative. The structure is front-loaded with the core action, but it lacks depth that might be useful for clarity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity of cluster health monitoring and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'health' entails, the format of the return values, or any behavioral considerations. For a tool that likely returns critical operational data, this minimal description leaves significant gaps in understanding.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter semantics, but this is acceptable given the absence of parameters. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as the schema fully covers the input requirements, and the description doesn't need to compensate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('basic information about the health of the cluster'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_cluster_stats' by focusing on 'health' rather than general statistics, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate them. The purpose is clear but could be more specific about what 'health' entails.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose 'get_cluster_health' over 'get_cluster_stats' or other monitoring tools, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied only by the tool's name and description, with no explicit context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.